Movements, Messages and Games as Art

[undeadexistentialist]

Greetings all, you may remember me from an open question about organ donation some time ago... more than likely you don't, so in that case, hey what's up?

Before I get on to the topic I'd like to discuss, I feel it necessary to get a few preliminaries out of the way. First of all, I apologise in advance if any/all of this has been covered elsewhere on this site, if so I'm happy to take suggestions of a new way in which the discussion could be moved or altered to keep things fresh. Also I'd like to apologise if this is in the wrong place. It's about gaming, but I'm not 100% on what the limitations are on that so there we go, my apologies if I got it wrong.

Also I'd like to mention that, until somewhat recently I was against the whole "games as art" claim. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't even really about games, it just seemed to me that too many things these days tried to claim themselves as art in some kind of cheap, pretentious move to gain legitimacy. I have since changed my opinion, and am all for the games-as-arters out there.


Now, on to the topic.
Lots of people are suggesting that games are not respected enough as an art form, not mature enough, not successful enough (in this endeavour I mean, not in general) and that we ought to be trying to make the industry more progressive, more mature, more nuanced, and that all of this would add to the legitimacy of the claim that video games are art, and I agree with this. I also think I know of a way in which this could happen.

What I'm thinking is that games need two essential things in order to help their integration into the artistic community. The first is games with messages. Now, let me say that first I'm not such a big consumer of indie games as I probably should be (especially given putting this suggestion in a positive light). I'm perfectly willing to accept that some, if not many indie games are out there to put forward a message. But it seems to me, in my inexperienced opinion, that we tend to be an all-or-nothing bunch. Either we're making a gloriously fun and ludicrously shallow gaming experience that's all about surface entertainment, or we're putting together one that's so unnecessarily deep that you'd expect to encounter anglerfish and so on before you get halfway down, and any ultimate meaning is lost in the ocean of vague, half-defined, open-to-interpretation possibilities about what it MIGHT be trying to say. What I think is needed is more of a middle ground; depth and complexity, but not snobbish disdain of actually having fun and intermediate goals and story-telling. An example of this would be the Path. I bought it, played it, was told about how open to interpretation and artistic it was, but to be honest.... I got nothing from it. To me it seemed like a bunch of different girls walking slowly around a forest occasionally encountering random collections of items with snippets of impressive-sounding words and not much else. I say (and I'm happy to both be corrected and to take suggestions for titles I should look for in this area, thanks to all willing to help) we need to stop with the one camp or the other, and try for a little mixing between the two.

My next suggestion is one I'm pretty sure isn't about, and that's a movement or two. My girlfriend does art history and can tell me all about the tens and hundreds of artistic movements there have been across the ages and cultures, what they were about, how they worked. I'm sure, with little research, I could find the same in movies, and as an occasional student of theatre, I KNOW there are some there too. All of these are recognised art forms, and all have movements. So I say, why not us? Initially, many of you might say (and you're not wrong), that games cost a crapload of money and take up a crapload of time, even with an entire dev-team at your beck and call, so it's not like any small groups of enthusiasts can just band together and make stuff of their own. And my reply to this would be, while it's still true, it is becoming less so. Indie games are becoming more of a thing, there's software packages out there that can help aspiring game-makers who (not unlike myself) have a desperate hunger to tell great stories, and know less than sweet F.A about coding, drawing, animating, voice-acting, and everything else that's needed to make games. With the increasing focus (among certain genres at least) on user-made content and create-your-own-experiences, I think it's only going to get easier for people to get a jump-start into making their own content, and so I think this could be a happening thing. Game movements, I like the term already.

I guess my two suggestions can be boiled down to one simple factor. Games that have a PURPOSE. I mean a purpose beyond selling as many copies as humanly possibly, or just to have fun (though I wouldn't for all the world want the latter category to die out. The former.... well, it wouldn't be TOO heartbreaking of a loss). Games that we can look at and think "what is the developer trying to say? Why did they make this game? What's the reason behind it? What's the message?" Because, as an art form, I think that's one fatal absence from our beloved medium. Get books, plays, movies, pictures, music, TV shows, and there'll always be the core nerds who will analyse, take apart, and generally go to town on it. Not saying we don't have that in the form of critics here in video game world, but most are too jaded or too naive to bother with purpose, they just concentrate on entertainment value, offense rating, value-for-time or value-for-money. And that's not their fault, nor is it ours (unless you have the ability and any sort of interest in coding and game-making but have been keeping your talents to yourself you selfish bastard). It's not even NECESSARILY the big dev's fault, because, as has been pointed out, as businesses they must pander to the desires of those with money, and as long as they do they have no need to try to branch out or take risks. It'd be a hard change to make (especially the latter suggestion) but, in my ever-so-humble opinion, the quality of 'artistic purpose' is one that we need to embrace if we're ever to gain legitimacy as an art form.

So, that's my unnecessarily long ramble. Thoughts, questions and criticism are all welcome.

 

[DioWallachia]

Here are some thread you may want to look:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.398232-Games-as-art?page=1
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.396775-Apparently-some-concepts-arent-too-video-gamey-to-work-with#16161285

Ok back on topic.

You know? games (even the most stupid ones) DO have a message. Whether if this message is worth a damn in the real world then THAT would be a different kind of problem altogether.

Do "deconstructions" count as having a message? if so, then i present Planescape Torment, Knight Of The Old Republic 2 and IJI (a freeware) as viable candidates. Kinda sad that i have to use old games when the AAA market of today doesnt care to give that kind of quality. Made it even worse when you consider that we can have The Epic Of Gilgamesh well preserved after thousand of years, and yet we can't find functional copies of old games from 10 to 20 years ago.

If those werent enough, then i guess that the first part of this presentation may contain a freeware with an intention in hand:

On the personal note, i believe that the reason that games are not art is because they are hardly doing anything with the, you know, INTERACTIVE part of Interactive Media. Shouldnt the participation of the audience had FULL EFFECT on the narrative as a whole? branching it in ways that still manage to tell its message (or theme) in each ramification. Just like how the theme of "torment" is present in every scene of Planescape Torment.

Sadly, this kind of branching is a coding nightmare, as Bioware say it with Armando Troisi. Thus, games are ultimately doomed by their own ambition of having a fully interactive story. They are doomed to be just movies with long shooting galleries in every story bit, instead of merging both things together like it should.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GameplayAndStorySegregation?from=Main.GameplayAndStoryIntegration

EDIT1:
Now that i remember, Hideo Kojima is one of those Auteurs with full control that have a vision or a message behind his works.

(Can't find the Youtube Channel with lots of white background interviews with videogame developers)

 

[DioWallachia]

Third reason
Production gets in the way. We are talking production costs, but also how games get their budget in the first place. Rarely someone comes with a great idea/concept they wan realized, and even if they do they wont get the budget because the publisher is already funding >insert franchisee< number X. To many times games is treated as a piece of merchandising to a "more popular" IP.

I have seen freeware done in spare time or as a hobby that has the same lvl of depth as System Shock 2 or Deus Ex, both in gameplay and how the story reacts to your actions. I dont see why would developers need that much money other than to make pretty graphics as the supposed "standard" of the industry.

 

[DoPo]

Games with a message - we have these. We have lots of these. It's mostly the AAA market that's somewhat lacking but even then you can analyse some AAA games. We have flash games with more message than some books or movies. Also, I don't think a message is a requirement for art but whatever.

Movements - don't we have these? We have different art styles, directions in game design and mechanics, genres, games influencing other games, etc. We can distinguish between X's (a company, or a single person - say, BioWare or Suda51) works and others. We've had all these for decades, too.

Sorry, but I with the points you raise and concerns expressed you didn't only miss the boat - you were at the train station all along. Unless I'm missing something here.

 

[DioWallachia]

Third reason
Production gets in the way. We are talking production costs, but also how games get their budget in the first place. Rarely someone comes with a great idea/concept they wan realized, and even if they do they wont get the budget because the publisher is already funding >insert franchisee< number X. To many times games is treated as a piece of merchandising to a "more popular" IP.

I have seen freeware done in spare time or as a hobby that has the same lvl of depth as System Shock 2 or Deus Ex, both in gameplay and how the story reacts to your actions. I dont see why would developers need that much money other than to make pretty graphics as the supposed "standard" of the industry.

Yes you have seen them.

Have 1 million people seen them?

Yes you can do something with little to nothing, but if you want to hit more than a small group you need to go big.

You know there was a Lord of the rings FILM before Peter Jackson made his. It has its own small cult following, but nowhere near the numbers Peter Jackson got. Going big will hit more and have more impact. The problem when talking video game budget is way to often the discussion is boiled down to "they just want pretty graphics!". Yeah welcome to a medium that involves vision. People also want their music in good sound quality.

And how do you know it is a small group? and even if it was, isnt ART being searched by just a small % of people, unlike the mainstream audience who is just there for a meaningless distraction that doesnt challenge their views??

You mention the Jackson film of LOTR, but that is an adaptation (pragmatic even) of something that he DIDNT wrote and a message that was already there to begin with. Hell, many of his works (except the first movie "Bad Taste") were just written by other people or are adaptations of something that already existed.

When going big, sacrifices HAVE to be made for the unwashed masses and i wasnt aware that ART was supposed to appeal to the mayority. Otherwise, we wouldnt have controversial subjects exposed in works of art, if the mayority DOESNT want to hear about those in the first place, isnt it? Art is not for everyone that its weak willed.

Graphics != Art style. An art style like in Killer7 manages to look good even after many years because it doesnt follow a trend of graphics looking realistic and that may be inmediatelly outdated by the time the game is fully completed. Developers could save more money making their own style that suits the tone of the story rather than following the idea that better graphics = more immersion.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6117-Photorealistic-Sociopathy

Not sure why you bring the music, but just in case, freeware has good music too:

Spoiler

Not seeing your point.

 

[DioWallachia]

Games with a message - we have these. We have lots of these. It's mostly the AAA market that's somewhat lacking but even then you can analyse some AAA games. We have flash games with more message than some books or movies. Also, I don't think a message is a requirement for art but whatever.

Movements - don't we have these? We have different art styles, directions in game design and mechanics, genres, games influencing other games, etc. We can distinguish between X's (a company, or a single person - say, BioWare or Suda51) works and others. We've had all these for decades, too.

Sorry, but I with the points you raise and concerns expressed you didn't only miss the boat - you were at the train station all along. Unless I'm missing something here.

I dont remember seeing a Dada work lately. And no, Superman 64 doesnt count as Dada. That was a plain normal failure, not intentional.

 

[DoPo]

I dont remember seeing a Dada work lately. And no, Superman 64 doesnt count as Dada. That was a plain normal failure, not intentional.

Are games required to represent every art movement in existence? Do movies do that, I wander? And one more question, how would you define Dada? I am not entirely sure I can - as far as I know it's...something and it doesn't have to makes sense. I certainly can't quite understand what is and what isn't Dada, so I may be wrong, but we games that don't make much sense and not just broken ones.

I think we're rapidly approaching the point (actually, I think we've passed it a long time ago) in which we have to ask, what the fuck IS art? All these discussions need to have this in the first paragraph to be meaningful, so post number 9 is a bit late, but whatever - what is art and how does one distinguish it? What is the similarity between pictures, paintings, literature, theatre, music, sculptures, and movies (and so on) - the thing which games do or do not have themselves and which defines each as art?

 

[DioWallachia]

I dont remember seeing a Dada work lately. And no, Superman 64 doesnt count as Dada. That was a plain normal failure, not intentional.

Are games required to represent every art movement in existence? Do movies do that, I wander? And one more question, how would you define Dada? I am not entirely sure I can - as far as I know it's...something and it doesn't have to makes sense. I certainly can't quite understand what is and what isn't Dada, so I may be wrong, but we games that don't make much sense and not just broken ones.

I think we're rapidly approaching the point (actually, I think we've passed it a long time ago) in which we have to ask, what the fuck IS art? All these discussions need to have this in the first paragraph to be meaningful, so post number 9 is a bit late, but whatever - what is art and how does one distinguish it? What is the similarity between pictures, paintings, literature, theatre, music, sculptures, and movies (and so on) - the thing which games do or do not have themselves and which defines each as art?

Actually it was asked before Post Nº9.........in many threads before (even the one i linked to)

But i got a better question: Why BEING art is important to begin with? why do we need to pass this "rite of passage" that other mediums (supposedly) passed with flying colours? Does art makes the unwashed masses more interested in games or threat them with more respect? i dont see anyone threating movies with respect with shit like Transformers and Jack & Jill going around, even after movies have been "proven" to be art before.

 

[DioWallachia]

Thirdly you are now making the same argument against graphics so many hipsters have before you being hopelessly reductionist in your argument. "It is just graphical whoring" is just plain wrong. Yeah you have fitting music for the indie titles so that must mean that 8bit music would have been just as great for God of War. Screw having a orchestral backing. It does nothing to achieve the epic the developers are going for. Screw paying for sound equipment and paying voice actors. They add nothing to the chars we are trying to portray here. After all nothing can be derived from a voice. All you need is text.

Depends of what the developers definition of "epic" even is.

An orchestra may be just as epic an 8 bit music under the right circunstances and direction, in the same way that a silent protagonist can be just as compelling as a voiced one.

Sometimes less is more. Case in point, compare "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream" the short story (pure text) to the videogame adaptation. Lets see if having interactivity + voice "acting" + and visuals are much better. Sure, one CAN try to see if it works, but as long the MAIN characteristic of the medium works as intented (the interactivity in case of a videogame) then anything else is just icing on the cake.

I know you are under the impression that every vision can be achieved with nothing but 8 bit color and art style graphics, but your view is as narrow as those who cannot see the concept without 1 mil polygons.

Here is a fact for you. Limiting your toolbox is not a boon. You can do very much with very little, but you can do even more with a lot.

3 Words: "Art From Adversity"

For example, the original Star War trilogy was filled with problems during its creation and that lead to many things being cut to make it more consistent.

Human beings work much better when having limited resourses and a clear objective.

Spoiler

But when you have no limits whatsoever and total power........things get out of hand quickly. The SW prequels is a good example.

 

[DoPo]

Actually it was asked before Post Nº9.........in many threads before (even the one i linked to)

I know, I've made it a point to ask any time I get involved myself. It's just that it wasn't asked in this discussion here.

But i got a better question: Why BEING art is important to begin with?

I'm not entirely sure. I mean there is that legal protection, for example, and "recognition by society" (for whomever it matters) but I don't think everybody fighting for art recognition is doing it for these reasons. And I don't these reasons deserve as fervent a pursuit as some people have exhibited. Bottom line, there is some merit in games being art but I find the amount and extent of of discussions about it being out of proportion than it. And I don't know why that is.

 

[DioWallachia]

None of the other mediums passed it with flying colors. Opera went through the same trails and tribulations that games are going through.

It is important to get games defined as art because it make them valid forms of expression to the world. Free speech if you will. What you do with this valid expression can still be crap (your example being Transformers), but that doesn't undermine the medium as a whole.

That is why i used the quotation marks on "proven"

But anyway, if the other mediums didnt make it either, then why is the focus centered around videogames like if they are the new kid on the block that needs to be initiated? I guess that i must congratulate the detractors from distracting everyone else from the fact that other mediums didnt do jack shit.

And why would videogame benefit from The Free Speech thing? they already do whatever they want regardless if it is sensitive or not.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Are games required to represent every art movement in existence? Do movies do that, I wander? And one more question, how would you define Dada? I am not entirely sure I can - as far as I know it's...something and it doesn't have to makes sense. I certainly can't quite understand what is and what isn't Dada, so I may be wrong, but we games that don't make much sense and not just broken ones.

That's because Dadaism isn't as much a comprehensible art-form as it is a critique against what dadaists felt was an increasing amount of abstraction in art, leading to "real" works of art that were so abstract that no one but the artist "understood" them. So by taking it up to eleven the dadaists satirized abstractonism, they weren't out to create a legit art-form, they were out to make fun of abstract art.

Hence, Dios questions is kind of a trap because any given medium doesn't need a dadaist work until the mainstream works in that medium are getting so abstract that it deters the audience. If anything, games suffer from the opposite problem: they are too afraid to leave the very structured formulas of gameplay and basic narrative to explore abstract themes or even to try and mess with the controls to make them more abstract.

 

[zehydra]

Games are art, regardless of whether or not people agree with it or not.

Reason being, is that the only coherent notion of art which can be extrapolated empirically, is that which is man-made, for the sake of emotional response.

Obviously, most if not all games elicit some level of emotional response, with the "most-artistic" games being those which elicit the deepest emotions for the greatest number of people.

 

[Woodsey]

Secondly.
Developers as well as the audience doesn't respect their own medium enough. How many times have you seen the "well games just need to be fun, why does the rest matter?" attitude. There is nothing absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make a fun game, but why this insistent on limiting the medium? Why cant it be fun and profound? We got a lot more tools in the box, but we dont dare use them out of fear that it might screw up the fun.

Worse, a lot of developers respect films more than the stuff they're working on, and spend most of their time trying to make up for what I can only assume are failed careers in the film industry.

 

[Racecarlock]

I would say that the best kind of "Art" game is one that didn't intend to be. Something that was intended just to be a really good game and just turns out to be a good form of art too. Take portal for example. At it's heart, a really fun puzzle game, but then they went over the top and added the voice of glados making tons of fantastic dark jokes plus environmental things that could clue you in to her "Nature".

I would say make something that people remember. Good or bad. Any Warhol and Jackson Pollack and Leonardo Da Vinci all share a museum.

If there MUST be a message, fine. But don't half ass it. Don't make it confused and heavy handed at the same time. And remember to keep at least some element of fun in there. Like thomas was alone or portal.

 

[DioWallachia]

Yeah less is more....

This is why I then counter all you examples with being unnecessary and point to my old Atari games. Unless you are willing to deny your own presumptions that the "less is more" then you have to agree that all the best games were older because they were more limited. Art through adversity.

Or you can acknowledge there is something to gain through more available tools and techniques, hence acknowledging that your "less is more" presumption is false. Thus proving my point that with bigger budgets comes more possibilities.

In the same way that more shit happening on the screen doesnt mean "attention to detail" (its more like shoving keys in the face of a baby, hoping it will entertain it), and in the same way that even CINEMA ITSELF uses less framerates (24 FPS) to allow the brain of the audience to capture information in a slower pace that they can handle (instead of the more "real" 48 FPS) then yeah, less is more sometimes.

And i can tell you with a straight face that older games were the best for being enjoyable even with tremendous ammount of drawbacks. Hell, even games that came after those on Atari still managed to make good use of their limitations. And i am not talking about Super Metroid, Tales of Phantasia, or Final Fantasy VI, i am talking about this:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VideoGame/Recca?from=Main.Recca

Recca is a fast-paced Bullet Hell shooter with awesome graphics, creative bosses, homing weapons and techno music. Even with more than 20+ enemies and bullets on the screen, there is usually little to no slowdown. One must wonder how Naxat Soft managed to code something like this for the NES.

Oh wait, that isnt from the Atari as you said before. Ok, lets talk about Space Invaders then.

Space Invaders for the Atari 2600 seems simple enough, but the Atari 2600 is only capable of displaying two player sprites, two rectangular shot sprites (one per player), and a rectangular ball sprite simultaneously. Atari 2600 Space Invaders can have up to 39 player objects and four shots on the screen at once, with no extra RAM or other special chips on the cartridge. It was doing things that the console literally shouldn't have been able to do.

Since craftmanship was once considered an argument for art, i would say that these are fine examples of "Art through adversity".

The point of all this is that, no matter how resourseful you are, if you dont know how to use it properly then it not going to make a difference. Bigger budgets doesnt guarantee quality today, unless that money went to Farbrausch who made ".kkrieger", a game with Doom 3-tier graphics that could fit on a standard floppy disk fourteen times.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Games are already art. Trying to make other people understand that is a doomed task. You don't alter one form of art to make it closer to some other form of art so people recognize it. We don't alter movies to be more like paintings. The thing we need is not to alter games to please others but to change how people think about games so they recognize them as art. That's not an easy task but luckily with the increasing popularity of games its likely that over time games will become more legitimate and recognized as art. Considering that the Smithsonian already had an exhibit on games, I'd say its only a matter of time before the public recognizes them as such. The only thing to worry about now is increasing the speed of that transition and not screwing it up.

 

[undeadexistentialist]

There's a lot of good things being said, and thanks to everyone for participating. I'd like to respond to this point, though.

Games with a message - we have these. We have lots of these. It's mostly the AAA market that's somewhat lacking but even then you can analyse some AAA games. We have flash games with more message than some books or movies. Also, I don't think a message is a requirement for art but whatever.

Movements - don't we have these? We have different art styles, directions in game design and mechanics, genres, games influencing other games, etc. We can distinguish between X's (a company, or a single person - say, BioWare or Suda51) works and others. We've had all these for decades, too.

Sorry, but I with the points you raise and concerns expressed you didn't only miss the boat - you were at the train station all along. Unless I'm missing something here.

To your first point, I'd say that I agree, message isn't a requirement for art. The reason I think message is important, though, is because of the last part of my post - purpose. When you're trying to make a toy to occupy the children, you can staple any relatively entertaining bits you can find on it and throw it out there and go do something else. When you're trying to make something you can mass-market and then add another wing to your country mansion, you'll make whatever's selling most these days. When you're actually trying to SAY something, you're far more likely to go out of your way, try new things, take risks, defy convention, use interesting new ways to get the message across. If a larger proportion of developers were in it to try and say something, A) we'd have a lot more pretentious meaningless crap, but also B) we'd have a larger number of genuinely valid and valuable interactive experiences out there. Like everything, at the end of the day, there's bound to be far more crap than products of genuine quality, but the only reliable way to increase the amount of quality products is to increase the overall output. I also mentioned I'd in no way support getting rid of games for fun, just that I'd like to see more games for a message, and for another point, it helps turn critical and venemous controversy into a more positive thing. People in general will, I feel, have a lot more respect for games when we can honestly turn on their claims of sexism, misogyny etc with the response "that's actually in there to prove a point."

Secondly, with regards to your second point, I'd suggest that there's a difference between devs, art styles, genres and movements, and that, initially at least, the difference is one of which encompasses which. I think this can be applied to all or most of your examples, but let's take genre as a general term for all the others too for simplicity. The difference between a movement and a genre is, as I said, which encompasses which. When you're talking about a genre, you're talking about one form of experience, generally constructed in a certain way, but something that can be made by just about anyone, any dev or indie producer, which the genre being a shorthand so that you know what to expect. The experience can be crafted by any one of any group, as part of one project among many different genres. A movement, on the other hand, is one type of experience, done in a particular style, with a particular purpose, generally engaged in by one of a number of artists (for want of a more specific term) working mostly if not EXCLUSIVELY within that movement. Take visual art. You don't get 'mainstream artists' who might, on any given week, paint a modern piece, a post-modern piece, a classical piece, an abstract piece, whatever they feel like doing. When you have an art movement, you get a bunch of artists who all paint in that one style. To come back to my earlier terminology, when referring to a genre, the producers of it encompass the genre, but when referring to a movement, it's the movement that encompasses the producers. Also, I think a movement is more specific than a genre. A genre, like survival horror, is about being alone, outnumbered, escaping death by the skin of your teeth and just trying to survive. A movement is about more than just the type of experience, but how its expressed, usually there are several 'stock elements' in the background that symbolise certain things, trying to get across one particular message, done in particular settings, sometimes even stock characters too. Art styles are also too broad to be movements, and one dev alone, recognisable or not, can't make a movement.

 

[undeadexistentialist]

Another valid point raised is why should we bother trying to gain 'artistic' acceptance at all? This is a good question, but I think the answer's been raised here too. Ultimately, I don't think we should care if the everyday non-gamer doesn't think games are art. Why should we care about their opinions anyway? I also don't think much will be achieved if gamers themselves start calling games art - there's more than enough of that crowd on here, and not much has resulted. The people we need to convince, in my opinion, are the devs. Like some of you have said, despite building a career around game-development, so many mainstream devs just don't seem to respect games as a medium, and that's the attitude we need to change. They don't see it as anything more than either a well of money from which to line their pockets, or a set of jingly keys to distract us from our lives for a few hours, which is why we have an excess of mature content and a deficit of maturity. The devs are the ones who need to see games as an art form as valid as cinema, books and art itself, and when they do we can sincerely hope to see a large increase in the quality and depth of the games that come to our shelves. That's why, in my opinion at least, it's important that games be recognised as art.

 

[Racecarlock]

There's a lot of good things being said, and thanks to everyone for participating. I'd like to respond to this point, though.

Games with a message - we have these. We have lots of these. It's mostly the AAA market that's somewhat lacking but even then you can analyse some AAA games. We have flash games with more message than some books or movies. Also, I don't think a message is a requirement for art but whatever.

Movements - don't we have these? We have different art styles, directions in game design and mechanics, genres, games influencing other games, etc. We can distinguish between X's (a company, or a single person - say, BioWare or Suda51) works and others. We've had all these for decades, too.

Sorry, but I with the points you raise and concerns expressed you didn't only miss the boat - you were at the train station all along. Unless I'm missing something here.

To your first point, I'd say that I agree, message isn't a requirement for art. The reason I think message is important, though, is because of the last part of my post - purpose. When you're trying to make a toy to occupy the children, you can staple any relatively entertaining bits you can find on it and throw it out there and go do something else. When you're trying to make something you can mass-market and then add another wing to your country mansion, you'll make whatever's selling most these days. When you're actually trying to SAY something, you're far more likely to go out of your way, try new things, take risks, defy convention, use interesting new ways to get the message across. If a larger proportion of developers were in it to try and say something, A) we'd have a lot more pretentious meaningless crap, but also B) we'd have a larger number of genuinely valid and valuable interactive experiences out there. Like everything, at the end of the day, there's bound to be far more crap than products of genuine quality, but the only reliable way to increase the amount of quality products is to increase the overall output. I also mentioned I'd in no way support getting rid of games for fun, just that I'd like to see more games for a message, and for another point, it helps turn critical and venemous controversy into a more positive thing. People in general will, I feel, have a lot more respect for games when we can honestly turn on their claims of sexism, misogyny etc with the response "that's actually in there to prove a point."

Secondly, with regards to your second point, I'd suggest that there's a difference between devs, art styles, genres and movements, and that, initially at least, the difference is one of which encompasses which. I think this can be applied to all or most of your examples, but let's take genre as a general term for all the others too for simplicity. The difference between a movement and a genre is, as I said, which encompasses which. When you're talking about a genre, you're talking about one form of experience, generally constructed in a certain way, but something that can be made by just about anyone, any dev or indie producer, which the genre being a shorthand so that you know what to expect. The experience can be crafted by any one of any group, as part of one project among many different genres. A movement, on the other hand, is one type of experience, done in a particular style, with a particular purpose, generally engaged in by one of a number of artists (for want of a more specific term) working mostly if not EXCLUSIVELY within that movement. Take visual art. You don't get 'mainstream artists' who might, on any given week, paint a modern piece, a post-modern piece, a classical piece, an abstract piece, whatever they feel like doing. When you have an art movement, you get a bunch of artists who all paint in that one style. To come back to my earlier terminology, when referring to a genre, the producers of it encompass the genre, but when referring to a movement, it's the movement that encompasses the producers. Also, I think a movement is more specific than a genre. A genre, like survival horror, is about being alone, outnumbered, escaping death by the skin of your teeth and just trying to survive. A movement is about more than just the type of experience, but how its expressed, usually there are several 'stock elements' in the background that symbolise certain things, trying to get across one particular message, done in particular settings, sometimes even stock characters too. Art styles are also too broad to be movements, and one dev alone, recognisable or not, can't make a movement.

You know, I was right. I really do like it way more when someone just proposes more meaningful games get made alongside the fun ones.

See, before you came along a lot of art gamer posts looked like this. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.371804-lollipop-Chainsaw-is-a-terrible-idea

I really hate it when people make posts like the one I just linked to, because it implies that all games should be heading in one direction towards some singularity rather than branch out and do what they want to, whether that be COD gun porn or dragon story sandboxes like skyrim or driving and flying games.

Seriously though, this point is much more bearable to read without all the "We must eliminate DOA and Lollipop chainsaw and COD because they're holding us back from being truly mature" bullshit that other posts like the one linked above seem to be obsessed with.